tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post6673365140713066544..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: A guide for demanding a higher military budgetUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-39329953295052474182014-07-12T00:10:04.888+02:002014-07-12T00:10:04.888+02:00I don't agree that benefits from bullying are ...I don't agree that benefits from bullying are unethical. One of the biggest problems with Western countries is that we do not extract a pound of flesh when we bully--we largely bully for reasons of ego and domestic politics.<br /><br />Imagine if we used the threat of military force to open markets, completely tariff and regulation free, to our exports.<br /><br />Or what if we had actually seized the oil in Iraq? It probably still wouldn't have been worth it, but it would've been a hell of a lot better than what actually happened.Thorfinnssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-52295423170555156052014-07-07T13:11:54.077+02:002014-07-07T13:11:54.077+02:00Let's give something more simple a try:
Defend...Let's give something more simple a try:<br />Defending the territory against invasions.<br />Defending the economy against coercion via sanctions.<br />These are the two basics for obtaining freedom.<br /><br />Defence of the territory is a given with the current level of most military spending globally.<br />Defending the economy against coercion via sanctions is a dangerous route.<br />It advocates the capability to defend own communication lines or deter by threatening someone else's. You could even go so far and grab control of something of "strategic importance" like the Midddle Eastern oil fields. For this approach, you need a navy (LHD, carriers and such) that can defend your own communication lines on the oceans and an army that can run invasions of surprisingly resource rich countries. Defending your economy, by creating a situation that makes it impossible for any competitor to run sanctions on you, is kind of the traditional seapower approach, exemplified by the USA and on a lesser level by France and UK.<br />Defending your territory is a more continental approach that is the basis for your thoughts. We are in a transitional phase during which more countries want to position themselves with the capability to defend their economy, thus built giant warships and invade defenceless underdeveloped countries.<br /><br />Arguing for a capability to defend the economy should be that, a capability, not a raptor. The problem with all arguments for defence of the economy is that they run the raptor course, that the only way to feel safe is by controlling the world (Anglosphere) or having a capability to challenge the control of the world and impose some own.<br /><br />How to combine interests-sea-ships-win into something sensible? The Jonesses invest into naval assets and that makes it possible that they clash and endanger the freedom of navigation. It's a stupid idea to fuel the flames and invest into a naval armament, but it would be a wise investment to have the capability to do so if the freedom of navigation gets endangered. How to solve this?<br />Run cooperations with existing allied naval powers for know-how transfer, creating an own know how base. It might be helpful to have a small amphibious and fixed wing aircraft carrying- ship for training that know how level (Spanish or Italian designs come to my mind).<br />It's only training to have a capability. Built up of actual hardware and expansion of personnel takes place in the final arms race before and during an actual war. You are right that heavily investing into a lot of military hardware now is the least efficient solution to creating security and the costs of lost opportunities is too high. But you kind of overlook the costs of lacking capabilities in the further future.<br /><br />KRTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com